Posted
by
timothy
on Saturday July 07, 2012 @02:26PM
from the advancing-the-arts-and-sciences dept.

walterbyrd writes "The latest in the ridiculous saga of the patent dispute between Apple and Samsung, which has resulted in Samsung phones and tablets being banned from sale in the U.S. is that Samsung, with the help of Google, has been pushing out an over-the-air software update to make its phones worse. Yes, the OTA update is designed to take away a feature, in an effort to convince the judge that the phones no longer violate Apple's patents. The feature in question? The ability to do a single search that covers both the local device and the internet."

I think Apple should be killed first. I have never seen a worse bully or a sorer loser. The tech industry needs to rid itself off this idiocy of a company once and for all. With all the money they have, they have the power now to completely annihilate innovation in the entire tech World. Things were better when they did not have that kind of money power; atleast then they had the hunger to build better products. Instead of quashing competition in the Courts and with the FTC.

I can't defend Apple's actions but then I don't need to. What they do is legal. The problem is the system. There will always be the Microsofts, Apples and Oracles of the world but giving them this kind of power is beyond stupid. If it wasn't Apple it would be someone else.

I can't defend Apple's actions but then I don't need to. What they do is legal. The problem is the system. There will always be the Microsofts, Apples and Oracles of the world but giving them this kind of power is beyond stupid. If it wasn't Apple it would be someone else.

thing is, what Microsoft can't do they have Apple do. Either for fear of government interference(this is still a very large real threat for MS, but not to Apple due to legacy reasons and Apple owning just a small part of the desktop world) or fear of pissing up their manufacturers, some of which are only shipping windows phone as lip service to MS to keep them from litigating against their Android phones - and to reap money back from MS they have to pay to MS as licenses when shipping androids, by getting discounts on WP licenses.

Apple has no problem with the manufacturers shipping MS products(cross licensing in place - with unpublished details). And Nokia has cross license agreements with said manufacturers so they don't want to stir the pot(and they're knee deep in frand licensing too, which Apple isn't).

It's sort of a new age duopoly arrangement. Mere few years ago these players were busy litigating each other but now they're effectively married as far as patents and blocking each others products go, with cross licensing agreements between Apple, Nokia and MS going every way and even a patent troll created by MS and Nokia as a pool - and they all want android and the other manufacturers dead or under their control(Nokia maps as default win wp8 amounts to wp licensees effectively paying their competitor a small sum for every shipped phone, though again details are hidden). It's part of the system that has kept new handset manufacturers blocked from market despite foxconn being available as a manufacturing resource for anyone, the os being available for anyone, the parts sources being available for anyone...

what's even more ridiculous is that multiple firms have patents for things which amount to being the same thing when executed. that's sick.

I can't defend Apple's actions but then I don't need to. What they do is legal. The problem is the system. There will always be the Microsofts, Apples and Oracles of the world but giving them this kind of power is beyond stupid. If it wasn't Apple it would be someone else.

thing is, what Microsoft can't do they have Apple do. Either for fear of government interference(this is still a very large real threat for MS, but not to Apple due to legacy reasons and Apple owning just a small part of the desktop world) or fear of pissing up their manufacturers, some of which are only shipping windows phone as lip service to MS to keep them from litigating against their Android phones - and to reap money back from MS they have to pay to MS as licenses when shipping androids, by getting discounts on WP licenses.

Apple has no problem with the manufacturers shipping MS products(cross licensing in place - with unpublished details). And Nokia has cross license agreements with said manufacturers so they don't want to stir the pot(and they're knee deep in frand licensing too, which Apple isn't).

It's sort of a new age duopoly arrangement. Mere few years ago these players were busy litigating each other but now they're effectively married as far as patents and blocking each others products go, with cross licensing agreements between Apple, Nokia and MS going every way and even a patent troll created by MS and Nokia as a pool - and they all want android and the other manufacturers dead or under their control(Nokia maps as default win wp8 amounts to wp licensees effectively paying their competitor a small sum for every shipped phone, though again details are hidden). It's part of the system that has kept new handset manufacturers blocked from market despite foxconn being available as a manufacturing resource for anyone, the os being available for anyone, the parts sources being available for anyone...

what's even more ridiculous is that multiple firms have patents for things which amount to being the same thing when executed. that's sick.

anyhow, mixed local and web searches suck ass.

It is a step beyond this with Apple. THey all agree not to use or do cross licensing and patent protection rackets with each other so if a third party comes in and sues they can combine forces and sue for defense.

But not Apple. Apple is everyone MUST OWN AN IPHONE or no phone at all. Everyone who makes phones needs to go out of business or leave the market to Apple altogether. They are extreme and fanatical and wont stop unless everyone but Apple is out of business. You can't negotiate with them as they do not want your profits. THey want you out of the market so Jobs vision of him outdoing Bill Gates succeeds. Tim's Cook ego is more important than your needs to your device you paid for.

I think anti trust laws need to go to Apple as this is beyond the equivalent of giving away IE 6 for free. This is more like if MS sued every OEM who dared include any other browser and used the FTC to ban the downloads and imports of every browser but IE 6. Apple is much more agresive and is using its money to block competitors from entering the market.

Apple can't have total domination, they know that, there's always going to be some low margin devices from their age old competitor & factories that make their devices. they're fine with duopoly though, they know they don't have to fear windows phone that much and there's room for two on the market - but if both iOS and windows phone become niches among android versions that's bad business for both.

Strange modding on my post though. it's not a troll, just statement of current facts - thing is though if you're a ms fan or an apple fan you're going to get pissed at the truth. if it's a troll how come nobody was trolled? no counter arguments?

modding it overrated or off topic would be more apt if anything. these parties were suing each other just few years ago, but not that long ago they stopped that and all are aiming just making android less feasible - MS with demanding money from every android shipped and apple just outright gunning for blocking and the Nokia vs. Apple schism that could have caused trouble to Apple was brought to settlement after Nokia was brought to MS camp, the sums that were in public about that were so large they could have been used for short blocking, much more so than what Apple is using against nexus now, even oracles lawsuit could be seen as extension of that battle(even more so taking that Ellison is connected and was connected with Jobs). I'm not going to go all apk on it and start providing links for the things though, if someone wants consultation why I know all this and why it's true they'll have to look me up and pay relevant fees for my time - though it's all backed up by public news and documents, so I don't see why anyone who can google news articles would bother(not under nda's, no sauna talks, no bar talks - none of that sort led to these conclusions so I'm fine on that, can't sue me).

and this isn't even near the ugliest things going on in mobile business.

Is that sarcasm? I can't even understand what the previous poster is trying to say. It seems like some sort of conspiracy theory involving Apple and MS, but the sentence structure is as torturous as the "logic".

I see a couple of points re. the de-facto relation between MS and Apple that I agree with. These guys have a long standing truce, from around the time Apple helped MS make the Windows GUI and MS pledged to supply a MAC version of Office.

That and the fact that Apple doesn't give a shit about their desktop market. The fact that they're turning £2,000 laptops and PCs into oversized iOS devices is testament to this. As soon as they started raking in obscene amounts of money for handhelds (iPods, iPhones and iPads) they left their desktop products to fester and morph into an unsightly extension of their iOS division.

Apple's corporate culture seems to favour aggressive psychopaths more than any other, we all know what a lunatic Jobs could be and Cook seems to be little different. There are times now where I long for the days of Ballmer dancing around like a chimp, at least we got a cheap laugh out of his chemically imbalanced grey matter.

While you are absolutely right that what they are doing is legal, it doesn't mean that they aren't also bad actors. Getting a patent on "searching local and remote content with one search, OMG on a phone" is - well - a corruption of a broken system and it was disingenuous to even file for that patent. Then, actually using said patent in a blatant attempt to prevent competitive sales is almost the definition of a bad actor. (I imagine the "war room" sessions at Apple as they look through all of their patents and look at all competing devices to try to find something to sue over). While it is legal, it is also reprehensible. Just because it is legal doesn't mean they need to act in bad faith. However, I do believe that they will continue to do it (and so will others) until such time as the ludicrous rules allowing patents on software features are abolished.

There are plenty of morally wrong things people can do that are still legal. It's possible to harrass your neighbour in so many ways that just fall short of breaking the law, to the point they are suicidal, but if you don't do it then it doesn't mean somebody else will.

Apple are a morally bankrupt company, that got lucky in launching a product at the right time technological advances made it possible, then are using their extensive cash piles to destroy innovation. Business suffers, consumers suffer, the only winner is Apple being able to flog off their inferior technology for a couple more years whilst they censor their rivals from the marketplace.

Are you thinking of the same Apple as I am? One is a fluke, any more than that and it's far more than luck. Whatever you think of Apple, attributing their rise from near-death into one of the biggest companies in tech down to luck is to severely underestimate your "enemy", if that's how you want to position yourself (given the rest of your comment).

Perhaps this is why Apple have such an easy time of it. Their competitors think it's all down to luck and fanaticism.

having been an Apple fan for many years, owning multiple iMacs, Macbooks, iPod devices, and iPads, I am through with buying their products. Perhaps I should have stopped earlier but it just seems 2012 is the year when Apple jumped the shark.

You don't know what you are talking about. In Florida, like most states, you can only shoot someone when in fear for your life. If someone comes in your house, you can probably shoot them, but if they are just trespassing in your yard, you will most likely go to prison.

Apple's patent has tons of prior art. Your passive aggressive attempt to defend Apple merely shows you what a fanboi you truly are.

Yeah, it's got tons of prior art, but so the hell what? Until Google pays its pound of flesh in money and time to have it invalidated, that doesn't make a rat's ass worth of difference. That's not fanboyism, that's just the way the system works.

Apple is a company. As a company, it is going to do whatever it can legally do to thwart its competition. If that means obtaining a patent that will at some point later be ruled invalid and then using it to temporarily take your competitor's products off the market, or better yet, get them to disable certain feature of it, that conveys a certain impression to a lot of your competitor's existing and would-be customers: that 1) your competitor cannot be relied upon to deliver said features, and 2) that your competitor is basically creating knock-offs of your superior product.

There is a really damn good chance that this patent will be invalidated at some point--I'm hoping it during this trial. But the damage is done, and even though the patent isn't valid, Apple will have won a marketing battle from it.

The GP is exactly right on the money: The problem is with the system. Blame Apple all you want for not acting in an ethical manner, but if you think it's acceptable to have a system in place that depends on companies acting ethically, boy are you in the wrong country.

Even if Apple goes out of business tomorrow (fat chance...), the GP is also right that there will always be another company right behind them using the same practices to thwart its competition and get ahead. Even if somehow the plug was pulled on Apple doing this, what are you going to do about the 158 companies lined up right behind Apple to extract their pound of flesh from Google? Try to squash them too? Good luck with that.

In the meantime, sane, rational people like the GP understand that the only way to solve this problem once and for all is to change the system so that it doesn't depend on companies being ethical. Take away their weapons, software patents, and we won't have to worry about Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, or anyone else using the shitty system like this any more, and companies like Google (and yes, Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, etc.) can focus more of their time, energy, and money on producing cool products instead of fighting these incessant court battles.

Apple should do what is good for users and what is right. This is neither good for users, nor is it right. It's not about legality or illegality. People shouldn't do business with companies that take advantage of the system unfairly.

Apple is a company. As a company, it is going to do whatever it can legally do to thwart its competition.

It is not obliged to be an asshole. Other companies can do exactly the same, but they don't. Because they're not comprised of sociopaths. The problem isn't solely "in the system", but also in the companies that are immoral assholes. They're not doing something illegal. That doesn't mean that what they're doing is good.

You have a hard time selling shit to people who expect everything for free.

And who are these people?

I don't think you understand the market demographics. Android isn't for nerds, or geeks, or FOSS people, its for everyone. My father has an android phone, and he wouldn't know a kernel if it bit him in the ass, same for most of my friends (only 2 own iOS devices). My dad has spent far more on Android apps than I ever will, I'm guessing my friends are in the same camp (not being nerds, and not being free-software types). You really can't say, looking at market figures, that the n

All was fairly quiet in the mobile business due to what was essentially mutually assured destruction. Apples first successful entry into the mobile phone market brought with it an asymmetric patent playing field, as the entire concept of the smart+touch phone was still being hammered out and only a few players actually had lots of patents for this new market.

Apple fired first and it took less than a year after that for the entire market to be ablaze with lawsuits.

Take a look around. I see more and more people complaining about Apple. I know someone who had a macbook pro that just broke. Apple wanted him to buy another. He looked at PC laptops and asked a friend of mine why PC laptops were so much cheaper and had the same if not better specs.

He now owns a pc laptop. He was a die hard mac user.

Apple is ridiculously controlling and overpriced. Users dont want that. Users want cool, so they put up with the fist fucking you get as an apple customer.

I was in this boat. I was never a die hard Apple fan, but I did like their products. I had a MacBook Pro, an iPhone, an iPad, and two different models of iPod. Eventually, I just got tired of it. I got tired of the expense, I got tired of the smug "Just Works" banter even though I constantly had problems keeping everything synced up, I got tired of being told that I don't have rights to play such-and-such on so-en-so device, and so on.

The straw that broke the camel's back was when I decided I wanted to write a little iOS app and applied to the Apple developer program. I sent my application and my $99. They sent me an e-mail saying they needed proof of my identity. I didn't like that--what the hell difference does it make?--but went ahead and sent them a copy of my driver license with the license number blacked out. (It's none of their damn business what my license number is.) They sent me another e-mail saying they wanted an unaltered copy of my id, and it has to be notarized. That was around the same time that a bunch of stories were hitting Slashdot about developers complaining about how long it was taking apps to be approved, about Google Voice getting smacked down, and Apple demanding that all of its apps be developed in Objective C.

At that point, I'd had enough. I demanded by $99 back in a note telling them I'd decided to develop for Android instead and sold my MacBook Pro. I held on to my iPhone until the contract ran out, and last December, I bought a Samsung Galaxy Nexus, which which I have been absolutely giddy--it's a much better device, in my opinion. I still have the physical iOS devices (the iPhone and iPad) that I use to make sure web sites I work on work in iOS's Safari browser, but at this point, I'm not looking back.

Apple lost a customer and a developer over their shenanigans, and furthermore, I recommend against buying Apple to my friends and family. I still think the company is very innovative and they have top-notch design teams. They're able to accomplish a lot of amazing things. But other companies these days are accomplishing amazing things too, and in the end, it's just not worth it.

The PC was better because it had an open architecture and was expandable. The others mostly weren't. On top of that, the PC was cloned (because of its open architecture), making for much more competition. It's a lot better to have a crappier standard that you can get interchangeable parts from multiple manufacturers for, than a superior standard that you can only get from one place at an inflated price.

It's not the patent LAW that's the problem. They law says that a patent is for something that's innovative and that would not be obvious to a person skilled in the art (in this case, of programming computers). The problem is that this is a bad patent that should never have been granted in the first place. The problem lies with the PATENT EXAMINERS who ignored that portion of the law or were so incompetent in the field of programming that they didn't realize that passing the same data to an internet search engine that you pass to the search function on the computer or phone and then aggregating the results is obvious. The judge is supposed to presume that a patent is valid once granted. But it seems that in the area of software patents these days, that's an increasingly invalid assumption. Patents do get invalidated, but not often enough and often not before considerable damage is done to parties accused of violating patents.

Patent examiners are not stupid. But their performance reviews hinge on the number of patent application cases they were able to close. Rejecting a patent is much more time consuming than accepting it, because one has to justify it towards the applicants who are most certain to appeal the decision anyway, creating even more paperwork. So there is a strong incentive for any patent examiner to just rubber stamp with approval, resulting in the mess we currently observe.

The reason behind this lies in the fact that it is politically desired to artificially inflate the numbers of patents granted in a country, because that is widely seen as an indicator for innovation. And of course, that is just another instance of Campbell's law [wikipedia.org].

They should introduce a three strikes system, if you get injunctions and three or more of your patents are struck down, you don't get any more injunctions. You can still sue for damages after the fact, but no more blocking competitors with irrelevant tat.

I think that solves 90% of the problems with the current system. There's still the issue of needing the EFF to provide lawyers to people that aren't able to fight Apple/Oracle etc.. but they're not really that interested in those suits anyway, there's not enough money in the individual's accounts to pay the legal fees.

I actually prefer separate web searches and local searches. I find it annoying that the default Android search sends query terms over the web to Google, and I rarely if ever find the mixed searches useful.

As far as I can tell, I can turn off mixed global/local search, but I end up having to choose one or the other with the Google search app. Or is there some way I can get separate shortcuts for local and web searches?

Your personal views on the matter are completely irrelevant. That a company can be forced to remove a feature that it has provided in the desktop market for almost a decade, in order to not violate a patent that ought not to have been granted; vindicates Posner's views that the patent system is truly broken and absurd.

If you think this is new, you really don't know much about patents. We've had cases like this going back more than a century. This particular example actually shows more that these kinds of bad patents are becoming less and less relevant with increasingly software-driven products, products that can be updated essentially overnight. At some point, Apple will hopefully figure out that they are just embarrassing themselves with these kinds of legal shenanigans.

I haven't seen a "feature" this idiotic since Microsoft removed normal file name search and replaced it with a poor man's Google. Now I can't search for a file by the name I want, but it searches through all files on the whole god damned computer.

Much as I like my Pre 3 (yes, I know I'm strange), the simple fact is that webOS isn't running on a phone line (Samsung S3 and Galaxy Nexus) that could well overtake the iPhone in world wide sales if Samsung can ramp up production enough, so even if it infringed Apple wouldn't care.

This dispute is entirely about what will happen to the Apple share price if Samsung's higher end phones overtake Apple's sales. US shareholders don't seem to care about the world market, only the US one. Therefore, Apple executiv

This is just the kind of software patent that really strikes fear into smaller developers, since it's a technique that comes to mind naturally (I've had search boxes that have done mixed kinds of searches for decades).

I have never cheered "victories" even from companies I like, for any software patents... these truly are things that need to be abolished as patentable.

At this point though, I do not think the international community will allow it unless we get some REALLY strong support from government...

I would feel sorry for Android users, but then I remember that iPhone has not voice directions. Android does on Google Maps. iPhone does not. Allegedly Apple pys more in license fees to Google than Google gets from Android. We know that MS probably gets more from Android than Google does. Google seems to playing an aggressive game, which is looking like a rear action. Bing is becoming acceptable. Apple is going to fight hard on maps, and probably give features that Google will not. Google is a truste

Well Bing as a search engine is a joke. Bing maps is absolutely gorgeous, though. It's a shame they don't offer an Android app for it, because the bird's eye view is really nice, and it works in places (parks, trails, private roads) where Google street view doesn't. (Obviously I'm not buying an MS smartphone to use this, but if MS were to put their pathetic efforts in the mobile area to rest, and instead offer apps - that might actually work.)

Shouldn't the patent be on how it's done and not that it's done at all? That's like patenting the concept of a machine that seperates fibers from its seeds and not actually patenting the cotton gin itself.

Especially since the article in question doesn't use it. Apple didn't "force" Google to do anything, Google gave up a feature to avoid a patent fight. Not that the actual article is much better. I hate most of these stupid patents, but don't go around like Apple was whacking Google with a stick to remove a feature. Blame the judge for his ruling, if anything.And I don't even have an iPhone. I don't even have a smartphone.

Google Chrome and Firefox at the least, before the iPhone ever did it, allowed you to search your own local history AND the internet from the URL bar. Local searches showed up in the preview, but if you hit enter, it would pass the search onto your favorite browser. Software patents should all be invalidated, IMO.

Rotten Apple: Apple's lousy design patent lawsuitsBy Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols | July 5, 2012 -- Updated 23:47 GMT (16:47 PDT)> Summary: If Apple continues to have its way it will be illegal to buy anything that looks like a tablet because it will infringe on Apple's “design” patent.> In the last couple of months a boycott Apple movement has started. It started as a protest about working conditions in Apple's Chinese partners factories. But the banning of the Galaxy Tab seems to have given it new life.http://www.zdnet.com/rotten-apple-apples-lousy-design-patent-lawsuits-7000000356/

Apple Granted Patent for Head-Mounted DisplayBy Christina BonningtonEmail Author July 3, 2012> Google’s been flaunting its Google Glass prototype left and right, but it may not be the only company getting into the head-up-display business. Apple was granted a patent for a head-mounted display apparatus on Tuesday.http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/07/apple-patent-hud-display/

Federal Court of Appeals denies Samsung’s stay request on Galaxy Tab banKevin Krause | Jul 6th 2012 at 4:30pm> After Samsung was denied a temporary lift of a ban on their Galaxy Tab 10.1 earlier in the week, the news isn’t getting much better. The US Court of Appeals has denied the Korean mobile manufacturers request for a stay on the ban issued by US District Judge Lucy Koh. With the ruling, Samsung’s only hope to get the tablet back on the US market is to reach some sort of licensing deal or settlement with Apple, an avenue that is reportedly being explored jointly with Google.http://phandroid.com/2012/07/06/federal-court-of-appeals-denies-samsungs-stay-request-on-galaxy-tab-ban/

Android Win: Apple Blasted for Trolling, Sees EU Patents DecimatedJason Mick (Blog) - July 5, 2012 3:10 PM> "Obvious" patents should never have been granted, given prior art> Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) international quest to kill Android, not by competition, but by lawsuits hit a roadblock in the United Kingdom when a Judge ruled Apple's patents to swipe-to-unlock patents to be invalid due to obviousness and prior art.http://www.dailytech.com/Android+Win+Apple+Blasted+for+Trolling+Sees+EU+Patents+Decimated/article25104.htm

Apple pulls out of EPEAT green registration, may not be able to sell computers to federal agenciesBy Steve Dent posted Jul 7th 2012 2:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2012/07/07/apple-pulls-out-of-epeat-green-registration/

How Steve Jobs Fooled the Leader of the Free World and His OpponentsIn 2006 Samsung released the SGH-Z610, a phone that had a gesture based touchscreen, app drawer, front and rear facing cameras – the works.http://theworldwarrior.com/?p=614

LG PradaThe LG KE850, also known as the LG Prada,[1] is a touchscreen mobile phone made by LG Electronics. It was first announced on December 12, 2006.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada

If Samsung's profit margins are so slim on those devices that they cannot afford a few pennies for this patent, they are doing something wrong.

Can you be a bit more explicit about what you think this license fee is? And preferably cite a source for it? Because my understanding - and I'm happy to be shown wrong - is that Apple is suing not for a fee but to prevent the features being used.

If you have ever used any of Apple's products (especially OS X, iTunes or iOS) you know how great they are. They are also innovative to no end. Windows and Linux shows that innovation requires hard work and only Apple magically manages to do it. Apple is fantastic for this and deserves all the credit and patent fees.

Apple is not "innovative"; they're good at stealing ideas, repackaging, and selling them.
Steve Jobs, in his own words said: "We have always been shameless at stealing good ideas"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU [youtube.com]
Yes, the selling is doggone hard work, and Steve Jobs was one of the best salesmen this planet will ever see.
And I will concede that other companies do their share of stealing too. Examples can always be found if you dig hard enough.
But in this case, with such an obvious idea that a

Unfortunately, too many people think "innovation" means "first to make it". And that is not true at all. Those who do real innovation just happen to be first. But there are things that are not innovation, even though someone does it first. Whether something is or is not innovative is often a subjective matter. Innovating is creating something others generally CANNOT create. It is NOT creating something others just happened to not create (because they were busy creating something else). The test... p

paying for a valid innovative licence yes I agree.BUT a patent exists for a single search of local AND internet?

This is classed as logical development and in any sane country isn't patentable. Searching local has existed for ages (but if a patent existed for that sure licence it), searching the internet is what google does... todo a search checking local and net is a logical evolution.

Best thing is people just stop selling in america leave the locals to Microsoft and apple

Yeah, it did - and I found it quite annoying. And (tangentially related), before that, I remember Internet Explorer trying to blur the line between what was on the local machine and out on the web.

I'm not an anti-patent zealot; but it seems pretty obvious ALL software patents need to be invalidated. I don't care what kind of capital Apple, Google, Microsoft, et. al. have wrapped up in them - this has gotten ridiculous.

It's also bad from a security perspective, because it provides a channel that leaks information about local files to whoever is providing the Internet part of the search, and (if they're not using SSL) anyone who happens to be able to listen in on any network between the two of you.

If Samsung's profit margins are so slim on those devices that they cannot afford a few pennies for this patent, they are doing something wrong.

Some people pay the mob. Some people fight the mob. Samsung - and now Google - has chosen to fight the mob. I think they are right in doing so. When it comes to paying the danegeld [wikipedia.org], rule one is 'never pay the danegeld'. Just ask Shakespeare:

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,âfâfâfNo matter how trifling the cost;For the end of that game is oppression and shame,âfâfâfAnd the nation that plays it is lost!"

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: --"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explainThat you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: --"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"-- Rudyard Kipling, 1911

It even worked on mobile devices. My laptop did mixed searches just fine, and it was definitely a mobile device. Most Windows tablets could also do mixed searches. I'm pretty sure that even with our hair splitting where we define one kind of computer to be a completely different animal than another computer because of how it was marketed, a tablet is still considered a 'mobile device'.

One of the stupidest things about PI (Patant Insanity) is the current trend of getting patents on things that are alre

god is it that hard to actually follow the law. apple uses tons of "other people's patents" but guess what they actually pay for them! Duh!

Yes, that is why if you Google "Apple pays patent lawsuit" [google.com] you will get no results. Unlike most of us on Slashdot who think that software patents have devolved into a corporate arms race that has created a minefield for independent developers; Apple considers it a civic, perhaps patriotic, duty to proactively find and pay for patents that apply to their product lines.
not.
duh.